The need for tighter linkages in education is multi-dimensional–horizontal, among the segments of higher education, and vertical, between and within the K-12 and higher education sectors. Students’ readiness for college and the increased use of technology to reinforce the linkages between the two sectors were prominent topics.

Problems with intersystem linkages surface when students’ credits are discounted or they must repeat work they have done elsewhere. At least two consequences form: the redundant costs of repeat or remedial education that states must carry, and the heartbreak that students experience after high school when they discover they are not ready for college-level work. The problems are serious. With respect to the first, Texas spends about $160 million annually on remedial education. Nevada subsidizes remedial education in the community colleges but not the universities. In Washington, all remedial education is provided in the community colleges.

In the case of the second, California research suggests many racial/ethnic minorities do not take college track courses in high school, so remediation for them is a major social concern. Remediation need not be viewed in negative terms, however, as it can pay off; Texas found that students who complete required remediation perform in college at levels comparable to those who did not require such instruction.

The solutions discussed included:

• Colleges and universities should work more with K-12 educators to ensure that students are ready for the transition into postsecondary programs. Higher education also should do more to promote and assist with K-12 reform and ensure barrier- free transitions.
  
• Faculty should participate in the design of competency-based systems to ensure that graduating high school students do not encounter admissions difficulties when they arrive at college.
  
• All postsecondary institutions should encourage the development and success of joint high school-college programs such as 2+2+2, tech prep, dual/concurrent enrollment, and advanced placement programs.
  
• Colleges and universities should work particularly closely with their feeder schools on a regional basis within disciplines to ensure integrated high school-college programs.
  
• They also should assist in the development of joint-use facilities for K-12, community colleges, universities, and integrated degree programs. Arizona Western College and Northern Arizona University, for example, share faculty and space.

Policy Implications for Linkages

Investment—Higher education institutions must be prepared to demonstrate that serious cost savings are possible before they can count on major funding infusions for technology. Cost considerations may be more important than many realize. These technologies cannot be sustained with a one-time cost; rather, they require continuous investments.

Mission—All aspects of technology may not be for everyone. Institutions must consider whether distance education, for example, is a logical part of their mission before committing to extensive outreach programs.

Cost-Benefit—Technologies are not cheap; the costs of interconnectivity, in particular, can be enormous. Educators and policymakers also must understand that savings may prove elusive. Continuous cost/benefit analyses must be performed to ensure that services on and off campus are provided in a cost effective manner.

Policy—Costs may not be the only problem. Restrictive policies and procedures established during an earlier time may be inappropriate to the new media. States and systems will need to review their procedures and modify or replace restrictive policies and regulations.

Learning—Institutions and faculty must be prepared to anticipate and accommodate the natural shift toward more student-centered learning approaches that these technologies allow.

Quality—Quality assurance will become a greater concern than ever. The traditional surrogates for quality–grades, credits, attendance–will become outmoded, as will such conventional safeguards as program review and approval requirements, institutional and program accreditation, and higher education funding formulas.

Outcomes—Technology naturally evokes the use of outcomes as the principal measure of quality. By shifting the focus of the quality debate from inputs to outcomes, the new technologies and distance education also can promote more closely linked education segments and, for students, smoother passage through the educational system. This emphasis on outcomes will dramatically affect the familiar higher education model, clearing the way for less formal learning experiences.